Question for Evolutionist's

No, there's no scientific evidence to describe your (and the OP's) strawman version of the theory of evolution. What you're describing isn't
evolution, therefore no scientific evidence exists to prove or refute it. Evolution, simply stated, is a change in allele frequency within a given
population over time. This has been observed and countless examples of it being observed have been provided in this thread.

I can site one major example for evidence of evolution over creationism.. I must state first that I do not believe in god, but I would never be
arrogant enough to assume that he/she/it does not exist in any form.. I can't really prove either way, and neither can anyone else. Therefore I remain
open to educated argument either way...

Although I must say... One of the theories does certainly hold considerably more credence with me than the other, purely because I am a creature of
reason and logic....

Darwin himself stated that his "theory" was not complete... And there were "some" things he couldn't explain... However, it is the best theory we have
so far, based on what little observable evidence we have... Which although is limited, is rather convincing, as others above have undoubtedly
proven...

Yeah, it's not complete, but just because we still can't explain some aspects of evolution doesn't mean that we therefore dismiss the whole theory and
affiliate ourselves with another "theory", (for that's what religion is to me), which is actually based on no provable evidence, contravenes the laws
of physics as we know them in several instances, and teaches us to accept many unlikely propositions while simultaneously informing us that we are not
worthy of understanding or questioning them.

Anyway... I fear I may be flogging a dead horse so to speak.. But here we go..

In the human body, the nerve that extends from the back Of the voice box, goes down the neck, round a major ventricule of the heart, then back up the
neck to connect to the brain. Now, this route is obviously not logical, and to design this feature, would be ridiculous, and certainly not the actions
of an omnipotent being... Now, here's the clincher... This feature is also present in the giraffe, it still has the convoluted route, which is about
6m in this instance! This feature originally comes from fish, and is still present in mammals from when the evolutionary tree split. You see, in fish,
his route us actually the shortest route possible for the nerve.

Now, this isn't proof.... But it's certainly strong evidence... Which is all we can provide.

Apart from fossils, which is purely speculative at best. Is there actually any evidence of a mutation in an animal to cause it to become another genus
of animal? Say a mouse for some reason has 3 legs, its still a mouse is it not? that would be considered a mutation according to you?

Follow your "speculative" prophets, and we'll follow ours. Then we can both get a long with different beliefs.

Man inked the pages of the bible. Geology preserved the ink of evolution.

Ever heard of Wales and Dolfins? They also have their own language, not even fully understood by men. Their brains are even bigger then ours and they
do seem to understand language.

How can one species "turn into" another?
One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one
population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population.
In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing.
Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and
presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between
the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the
populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't
be successful if they try.

Look at the birds DNA, it still has dinosaur DNA when 'awaken' will make teeth grow and claws on the tip of their wings..and we are just probing
this wonderful world of DNA..
Which means even though a dinosaur is nothing like a bird today, there is valid proof that the bird evolved from the dinosaurs.

I always find 2 things funny when a subject like this comes up (sad, but funny):

1.) People still try to use the fossil layers as an actual argument.

2.) Evolutionists are always so quick to anger.

1. Could it be because that's the only real evidence for either argument....?

2. Because they get tired of talking to people like the OP... it's exasperating!

It's like arguing with a 6 year old over the color of grass -- it gets old quickly because the creationists have no idea what evolution is and they
are free to make up facts.

When you are arguing facts that you pull out of thin air arguing gets pointless - The concept of evolution has had over a 100 years to fail as a
theory - it hasn't it is an accepted and important basis of much of science, it is getting more and more proof everyday -- and yet idiots believe
that they can make up facts and are dismissive or offended when they are called on it.

To not understand the simplest concepts in evolution is to wear you stupid sign proudly and with out shame as you sally forth amongst -- people who
paid attention in grade school.

You can't prove something like god doesn't exist (proving a negative) so you have to prove god DOES exist. Got any objective evidence?

Using your logic, prove I'm not the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ.

edit on 15-9-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)

Have you not read my posts?

I have already laid out my "argument" for either a belief or a non belief. You hold onto all of your truths and I will do the same. We are different
in many ways... and so I really do not care what you believe or what you do not believe. Why are you so concerned about ME proving MY logic to you.
Ha! At the end of the day that is all we have..our INDIVIDUAL logic....so....it is not proof to YOU because YOU do not OWN it.

Genetics is evolution. Period. If there were no genetics, there would be no evolution. Which means you wouldn't look like your father, and your
children wouldn't look like you, and we wouldn't have races. It would be a completely random compilition of features. We wouldn't inherit disease.
Whether God or the primordial stew started evolution, if it was God simply putting people on the planet, it would be one generation of random
components after another.

So the next time you go to the doctor and find out you have a treatable cancer, refuse treatment because one, most likely it is a genetic mutation or
inheritance that caused your cancer, so just let God take care of it for you. Because if it isn't evolution, God gave it to you and he wants you to
kick off.

So basically this is his OP:
"Don't show me the textbook evidence proving how evolution trumps religion. Instead, I'll make you answer so it sounds like something based on faith
and I'll disregard any shred of evidence against religion."

This thread should be closed immediately. Can people not see the blatant trolling ?
Why is it that he gets one star on every post he makes. Case closed.
You don't even need to go as far as to read the content of his posts. Doesn't take a microbiologist to see that.
People, don't feed the trolls.

Threads like this are absolutely pointless and are created by people who want nothing other than to make a stand for their deluded, entrenched belief
systems, for whatever reason, probably to make them feel good about themselves.

I for one am done arguing with creationists, I believe you have a right to believe whatever you want so long as it doesn't harm or interfere with
others. Live and let live. Some people want to live in accordance with an archaic book, or rather somebody's interpretation of said book. Let
em. Leave em to it. The science is there, it's literally written in stone, and they can't change that.

People need to ignore these threads, or at least avoid becoming embroiled in an argument with a person who has already made up their mind and will
never listen to you.

Originally posted by KJV1611
More questions. Explain where the sexes came from during evolution?

And for that matter, explain how TWO different "things" evolved from hot rocks, then to goo, then to sea creatures....and they managed to find a
sexual partner too?

Explain why if only the strongest survive then why has EVERY CREATURE ON THIS PLANET never evolved to live forever? Every thing dies. So much for
natural selection.

How come people are getting stupider instead of getting smarter?

Would just like to point it is not evolutions place to explain how life started just how it evolved after it started.

Evolution does not = survival of the strongest and just in case you have made another common mistake evolution does not mean new = superior.

The fact that every living thing has a begining and an end only adds to the simple truth all life on this planet is linked.

As for people getting 'stupider' its evolution in action. Our enviroment (niche') seems to encourage that trait, unfortunately.

As for I think Mamma J saying the monkey in the zoo she has seen for years has never turned into a man I think that shows a great deal of intelligence
on the part of the monkey and of course he would have to regress back to being our common ancestor and then evolve along the same path humans took.

"Also why out of 2 million species is Humans the only one's that developed language, how is this possible?"

First of all, let’s examine what language is…
Verbal Language is nothing more then a series of intonations to help us communicate.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines “Language” as: Communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as
voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols.

So.. With the exception of written symbols, most animals do in fact communicate. And just because you cant/don’t understand what they’re saying
doesn’t mean they don’t speak! Humpback whales for example emit very loud tones that travel hundreds if not thousands of miles to communicate
with each other. Most mammals as a mater of fact produce tones to reflect or signal their emotions. That would constitute as a language. Granted it
may not be as articulate as ours, but never the less a form of communication or Language if you will.

No, there's no scientific evidence to describe your (and the OP's) strawman version of the theory of evolution. What you're describing isn't
evolution, therefore no scientific evidence exists to prove or refute it. Evolution, simply stated, is a change in allele frequency within a given
population over time. This has been observed and countless examples of it being observed have been provided in this thread.

I think you must be referring to a concept known as adaptation... which is just a small part of the concept of evolution.

Unless you mean Darwin's "Theory of Evolution" that most "evolutionist" put their faith and belief in? The one that basically says :

"Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the
bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely
naturalistic (undirected) descent with modification"www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com...

And according to Darwin this process should be continual and ongoing. You should see transitions from all the category of life moveing both up and
down the chain as well as within the different categories right?

Life
Domain
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species

So to address the OP's original question which asked for some evidence of one Genus changeing to another Genus.

It's a trick question. Genus don't change anymore. (If they ever did.) Species and subspecies can "adapt" to their environment but that often
takes generations and at no point do "Canine's stop being Canine's".

But most especially interesting I have never seen evidence of any changes within any category except for species.

The only conclusion I can draw from 13 pages of ATS members avoiding the issue is:

1. If there was ever a time in history when one Genus was capable of becoming a different Genus... that time has passed.

2. Evolution only seems to be continually functional on a species and sub-species level. (Since this is defined as adaptation not evolution it is a
major glitch in the theory.)

3. Those who cling to the "Evolutionary Theory" as an explanation for the origin of man exhibit the same level of Faith and Belief as their
Religious counterparts. Neither have proof... simply a conclusion based on loosely related evidence.

Type: Whale Evolution into the search form (or click the link I just posted). You'll see more
than just charts, you'll see the fossils themselves in most cases (if not a simple google search will show images of the transitions).

Youtube user Aronra has a great series on the divergence of caniformes and feliformes

Even without direct evidence it would be logically sound to infer that because small changes occur within a population with each successive generation
that after many thousands or millions of generations the end result will look quite different.

3. Those who cling to the "Evolutionary Theory" as an explanation for the origin of man exhibit the same level of Faith and Belief as their
Religious counterparts. Neither have proof... simply a conclusion based on loosely related evidence.

Ya know, I always wonder on these types of threads why 'Creationists' love to target the theory of evolution so much.

I mean, it all started because of their near literal interpretations of a book written by a people long ago who had a severely insignificant idea of
what 'old' was when trying to describe the age of the Earth. They had no adequate frame of reference of the world around them, so they wrote based
on that limited understanding.

So why, out of all the scientific theories that describe the age of the universe and the solar system/Earth, Creationists have latched onto evolution,
I really cannot fathom. I'm sorry that we've learned that the Earth is much older than 6,000 years or whatever arbitrary number they're using now.
Perhaps it's time to revise your theological manuscripts (again) to accomodate these facts. Or perhaps I do know why they choose evolution to pick
on...because they feel it's the one that they refute the easiest by dismissing or flat out ignoring the least amount of facts.

Creationists feel that the fossil record, which considering true evolution of species takes millions of years, is all we've really got, can be tossed
aside just by saying 'not good enough', but sadly this isn't the case. They say that the only proof they want to accept is to see it with their
own eyes, simply because they know that it cannot be shown in such a manner. The closest we can do is show a few mutations where dormant genetic
material causes a tail on a creature that normally doesn't have one or redundant systems/leftovers that point to a distant ancestry.

As a disclaimer, I do believe there in a creator, but I would never dream of being so arrogant as to think that some book written by a bunch of
ignorant men playing in the sand and then re-written a dozen times by various whims of other ignorant men in power over the years in any way
ecompasses what the concept of God is or how creation came to be the way it is today. Hell, it's been said that King James threw out so many things
he did not like that the pages he tossed under the scribe's table caused it to raise several inches off the floor. Obviously this would be an
exaggeration of course (the paper would spill out from under the table and fill the room before it would lift the table lol)

The best I can say is that if you choose to ignore what has been discovered and choose to not agree with the most plausible conclusions related to
those discoveries, that's completely your choice. I would think you would be much better served, however, if you came together as a community and
revised your theology to fit with our revised understanding of the Earth and the universe.

Interpreting something literally that was never intended to be such that was written by men who had no means to understand the universe at the time
will only lead you into more problems than just the theory evolution.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.